CES 2012: Panasonic is showing mockups of two large-aperture zoom lenses for Micro Four Thirds. The Panasonic stand plays host to mockups of a 12-35mm F2.8 and a 35-100mm F2.8 lens, prominently badged 'Concept' lenses. Next to the models is a lens roadmap confirming the company's intentions to build a 12-35mm (24-70mm equiv) and 35-100 (70-200mm equiv) 'X' grade zooms, but with a note that the maximum apertures are 'to be determined.' The diagram appears to suggest both lenses will arrive later in 2012.

@quaoarus Ya, because the 14-35 f2.0 and 35-100 f2.0 lenses are really bad quality and slow... So is the 12-60 f2.8 to 4.0 and the cheaper 14-54 f2.8 to 3.5...

Anyway, this have been long rumoured, and I really hope Panasonic can pull it off soon, because we really need some fast zoom lenses to go with the system. And hopefully they won't be as expensive as the NiCannon counterparts...

THANKS Oly/Pan for all of those new fast lenses for m4/3.. 12mm f2.0, 45mm f1.8 and those fixed f2.8 zooms.. It's a shame you forgot you have another sistem.. The 4/3. And that it's users would also like some fast lenses in addition to 25mm 1.4 and not so fast, not so cheap 50mm f2. Why can't you make some cheapish f1.8s for us (it's not like other sistems don't have it, nor that we don't have enough problems creating shallow Dof thanks to the chip).

I'm just waiting for Oly to announce that they are finally axing the 4/3-system. It feels like it's been in it's death-throes for a while now. And honestly I see little point to a system that is not much smaller than the competition, but with a smaller sensor. Especially considering it's also party aimed at pros who are probably interested in new improved sensors, DOF-control and improved resolution. But it's a shame, they have a lot of great glass for that system.

Some of you are missing what the these lenses are being make for. Another camera in the Panasonic 4/3d's line up is the professional AF100/101 video camera. As a user of one, it is really missing a good fast zoom. I have been using my Canon 24-105mm f4 IS with an adapter but it is even too slow and I can't use the IS as it has no power. The Lumix 14-140 is slower for inside shooting and not constant apertur,e but it has OIS. I want a f2.8 lens or faster with OIS for handheld.

These lenses will be great on my GH2 as well. If you want small, buy pancakes. If you need low light zooms use a bigger lens. The camera is still small. I have the 14 pancake for small and the Leica 25 for fast but neither has OIS. Even with these new lenses I will keep both of those lenses.

That is the Achilles Heel of the pricey AG-AF100. No lenses. Panasonic was actually showing of this camera with an $800 lens adapter and an $18,000 Carl Zeiss cinema lens on it when they were bringing it out.

A camera body without a small line-up of good lenses that match the camera natively is IMO pretty much useless.

Not bad, but for a compact system, I would happily trade a bit of speed for wider zoom range and so less lenses to carry. How about 12-50/2.8-3.5 and 50-200/2.8-3.5, similar to the original Olympus 4/3 SLR lenses?

By the way,modern variable maximum aperture zooms can hold f-stop constant as you zoom, so long as you stay in range (f/3.5 and up for my examples), so one traditional advantage of constant aperture zooms no longer applies.

I think these m4/3 cameras are a 2x compared to 35mm, making these lenses equivalent to 24-70 and 70-200...pretty reasonable given the speed advantage over other m4/3 offerings or even DSLR lenses. For me the idea of 2 lenses covering from 24 to 200mm at F2.8 is pretty appealing.

These m4/3 and NEX cameras are getting pretty dang close to DSLR. I have a D90 and a flash and a bunch of lenses. I am wondering if this lens combo and a new Panasonic or Olympus would simplify my life and deliver 95% of the performance I am used to.

These have been a long time coming and look remarkably refined for concept pieces. My understanding was m43 was meant to mean cheaper manufacture, m43 lens prices don’t reflect that. M43 camera development is just enough to qualify as “upgrade”, often with the same sensor. Where are the $150 - $300 f1.8 primes?

Can't agree more, bought a gf3 dual lens kit during Thanksgiving.Wt I can say is M43 is only priced reasonably during Thanksgiving, and very expensive during the rest of the year. (Taking into account wt the M43 lens could deliver)

When M43 first came out, I thought it was ground breaking...since then, innovation is completely gone. 24-70 and 70-200 (FF equiv.) is simply dull...

No one's mentioned the 100-300, which served me well on a trip to Africa. No one's mentioned the total weigh(and bulk) differential between M4/3 and pretty much every other system. After a lot of analysis and comparison, I decided the minimal loss in quality was a small price to pay for GH2 video capability and total system size/weight advantage.

"From usability prospective 4/3 DOF is much better than any other system. FF too shallow, Pentax Q too big!" -------- Nope it is not. The FF is not too shallow, it is shallow when you WANT it to be. That is the point of larger sensor you can CONTROL the DOF. On m43 sensor you can not create the shallowness that is not possible because of sensor size. So NO m43 does not give best control so it is not best. For similar price one can get APC for better dof control and spending bit more could give you FF for more control. Second negative point about m43 is that sensor is not small enough to give truely pocketable cameras say for example pentax Q. And if someone is not looking for pocketable system then it makes no sense to give up on dslr or say NEX type system of APC to buy m43. And yes, I have problem with this statement "All lenses from Pany and Oly are sharpest in their leagues." , simply not true. Only a fanboi would utter such words.

m4/3 is perfect for my situation. I want a decent quality, pocketable camera with the capacity for different lenses. With a pancake attached a pen becomes pocketable but then has the flexibility of an slr with a couple of decent lenses. Saves me a lot of $'s only having to buy one camera. I don't need a high end compact and a dslr to chew up my budget.

This is what makes Dprieview the worst forum; it is so big people go around trolling all the time. :( Now if you really care about how big the sensor is, go get a medium format camera! I have a full frame camera, it's called film! The depth of field was too shallow at times, and 4/3 standard is a great choice- not everything needs shallow depth of field. Also, focus distance changes depth of field, so if these two lenses focus really close then there, walla, shallow depth of field. If more super 16 like lenses would come out for this system, then 4/3 would be doing much better. I think ASPC is starting to look like the awkward middle child, with a 1.6 crop and bulky lenses too boot.

Going by how Panasonic previously displayed lenses like this, think the 45mm macro, 100-300mm zoom and the fisheye the release of these lenses is not that far in the future. Most likely this year, maybe 6 months or less. I don't remember Panasonic displaying anything like this which wasn't released in the near future. The vaguness is just how they do it.

What is the concept???? A concept product serves the purpose to toy with new ideas and observe peoples reaction to it. Are 24-70f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 new ideas? Who in right mind wouldn't want a faster lens? Looks like an exercise to keep people interested in their m43 system with the help of "concept" products may or may not be made for real. Almost like an inferiority complex against the big brands.

No concept is a concept .. that can go on anything. In software we are having beta releases, in automobile we got concept cars in all sectors, so why not in lenses. I love the concept of concept, it tells Pany care about their customers and their ILC is long lasting and serious. Give them your feedback, too big too small not bright enough not wide enough .. whatever; but just stop crying like a silly child!

I think you missed the feed back in my comment. If you read the main article carefully the Panasonic don't even confirm the specifications of these lenses in the final production process. So what is the this exercise about?? Are they asking whether people would like faster or slower zooms for their systems? There is a limit how small you can make a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens for any given system unless the manufacturers discover something new about the laws of physics or new, revolutionary materials. Here is my reply (again): This is just a attention grabbing exercise for a firm which didn't come up with something new for this show. But, according to you we should be pleased with whatever the big firms come up with and thank for it just like a bullied child. alternatively you can point out what is new about a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens.

I was always surprised that nowadays the m4/3 kit zooms and APS-C kit zooms were offered at the same speed (3.5) -- all the while reading about "smaller and lighter." The only way you can "prove" the intrinsic advantage of m4/3 is to have a faster zoom that is not only smaller and lighter, but ALSO that such speed cannot be easily matched by the NEX or NX bodies.

So I don't see these lenses as being in the pro segment but rather in the enthusiast category and primarily as premium kit lenses. Having said that, I'd expect Nikon Sys1 to offer higher speed lenses as well. Then again, if the quality of these 2.8 (or higher speed) lenses is comparable to Pana 20mm in terms of full aperture resolution and CA, the price might escalate.

I'd also like PDR to do a quick primer on software lens correction. For example, can software correct for resolution? (I think not.)

When talking about lens speed for different size sensors, one should consider light per unit square (mm sq.)

It's a simple equation - given same technology level, sensors' sensitivity (at a given acceptable noise level) depends on pixel size, which in turn depends on sensor size and pixel count. Lens "speed" (f#) for a given physical size depends on focal length. For the same lens physical size and same usable object illumination and exposure time you can choose larger sensor and slower lens, or a faster lens and a smaller sensor. This even works out for depth of field).

A concept lens? Really? If it's a viable design, then why bother talking about it and putting it on display. Just build the darn thing and sell it before one of your competitors does. On the other hand, if it's just wishful thinking and not really practical, then why waste everybody's time and get people's hopes up?

I get the idea of a concept car, since manufacturers want to gauge how the public responds to the style of the vehicle, etc. But lenses are different. There's no question that people would want a fast, zoom lens that goes from all the way from a very wide 12mm to a standard 35mm. The only question is, how would the lens perform, and how much would it cost? But toting out a "concept" for people to eyeball does nothing to answer that question.

It's only a concept. They are feeling the heat from all the other CSC announcements of late by other manufacturers and facing competition, so they rush out a couple of "concepts". As for a "Pro", why have a "Pro" with such a small sensor? I sold all my Panny on Ebay and went Sony NEX, never looked back.

Definitely not going to use them as paper weights as you seem to be doing with your m43 gear. You seem not to understand that cameras are for taking photographs and thats what a NEX user would be using them for. You seem to be lost, here is a forum for you: www.m43-paper-weights.com

some of you people really get me. i mean it's bad enough modern cameras are looking more and more like cheap toys, but now you want them to be even smaller???? I want something substantial in my hands if I am paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for it. you can stay in the cheap seats if you want, but some of us want our money's worth and want to stand out from the rest.

Those have a lens filter diameter of 58mm and that 12-35mm seems like it is about the same size as a typical f3.5-5.6 kit zoom (also with 58mm filter size), but those ones are f2.8 constant and undoubtedly better quality.

That 12-35 is more like the 17-55/2.8 Nikon/Canon APS-C lenses (77mm filter) and both are way bigger/heavier. The FF 24-70/2.8 lenses are bigger still. The 70-200/2.8 lens would dwarf that 35-100/2.8.

@flipmac, such a big lens on a m43 body, and the IQ will get crushed by a Nikon D3200 paired with the upcoming 16-85 f/4 lens, which will be barely bigger than this and a lot cheaper. If it doesn't fit in the pocket, the compromise is not worth it.

Although you are right that the physical aperture is smaller, this should not affect the exposure. By that I mean that if you used The 12-35 at 12mm, f2.8 and 100asa, the shutter speed for a given scene will be the same as if using a full frame system at 24mm f2.8 and 100asa.

The most noticeable difference will be the depth of field, which will be quite a bit shallower on the full frame shot.

"to be determined" - well if that doesn't sound like market research. I say that the whole segment below the classic SLR seriously needs some light power. To interest me it would need to be f2 or better for an M4/3 format. I wouldn't even insist on zoom lenses. A matched set of, say 15, 25 and 40mm at f1.2 or f1.4 could be downright exciting.

Tantalizing. But does "concept" mean "not likely to appear at any nearby store for under $2k any time soon"? F/2.8, if constant over the zoom range, would be plenty fine, considering how slow the original GH1 long lens was. I'd care less about shallow DOF than the ability to take action shots at over 150mm equivalent with gymnasium or natatorium light.

i think there's a difference between 2.8 in aps-c and m4/3 regarding depth of field... therefore for now i definitely prefer lenses on aps-c system (actually FF is my dream but its out of my budget) :(

Only when dealing with different focal lengths, so for example 100mm f2.8 on m4/3 will have the same depth of field as 100mm f2.8 on APS-C, but on APS a lens with the same equivalent focal length, 133mm f2.8, would have slightly shallower DoF.

Of course the full frame equivalent, 200mm f2.8, would have shallower DoF than both of them. At any rate the difference between depth of field on m4/3 and APS isn't that great.

f/2? Not at all! Four Thirds brand partner Olympus has such full large aperture zooms in their "Super high grade" (Top pro" in Europe) range of lenses. These aren't cheap of course, as you might expect, but their prices can easily match those of 35mm f/2.8 zoom lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sony (late Minolta lens fitting). If Panasonic has not the technology to design and built such large aperture lenses (what would be strange given the fact it's one of the biggest electronic corporations in the world with large resources), they can ask their lens partner Leica, but that won't make them more affordable for sure!

I would say even if they make it f2.5 it will be big acheivement in this compact form. f2.8 is more likely and for me it is still good, if its sharp as normally Pany people make, quick and not too expensive. And make them soon!

I bet they will be as expensive as hell as everything from Pana/Oly. You get half of the ASP-C sensor, dark, unsharp lens with huge distortions, CA etc. at the price of Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D. You can say it's the price of the size, I say, it is a price of commertial and marketing.

Sorry, as an ex owner of Olympus and now an owner of a Nikon D7000 system, I have to correct you here.

1) 4/3 is not half the size of an APS-c

2) since when was f2.8 'dark' ?

3) Check the lens tests on this very site, amongst others. Many of the very sharpest lenses money can buy are made by Oly. Even their bottom of the range kit lenses give top range lenses a run for their money.

4) Oly lenses are renowned for their lack of CA and distortion. Again, check the tests and reviews. Nikon lenses, not only in my experience but also in reviews, are renowned for distortion and CA problems.

All bridge or "starter" system cameras should sell sealed in a kevlar bag that bears a warning: "Wealthy camera-addict use only. Do not open unless prepared to spend another $5k before your kit is complete."

I cannot identify with the above 3 comments. In my experience, the only expensive M4/3 lenses are optically very good. The ones that require (minor) corrections are cheap, and the cameras will do that for you if you're too lazy to do it yourself. By contrast, with Canon, the cheap lenses are nasty. I have not recovered from the experience of my 17-85mm IS zoom, which was optically the worst lens I have ever owned. It didn't help that it was physically flimsy. With My EP2 and the R version of the kit zoom I have a wide-angle zoom lens 1/3 the size, in-body IS, far less lens aberrations and the whole lot cost me 1/2 what I paid for a 50D with the 17-85mm.

@SpunjjiThe 17-85 is total crap, it is sad that you didn't know it.My wife's Oly EPen1 gives bad colors and massive noise. IQ is significantly worse than my old 350D + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Oly's RAW files are practically not editable in LR. Even small amount of Fill Light caouses huge noise in shadows and blur. The colors is total disaster. I have never f***d so much to get proper sky and trees colors. In addition all changes in color give grain in gradients.

I totally disagree with the comments posted saying that olympus lenses are bad and that the cameras need lots of color correction, the truth is that they normally dont need any correction while canon xs and xsi normally transform reds and greens and you need a lot of correction to get colors that are somewhat real. The fact is that the quality that you get with Olympus/Panasonic is matched only by advanced enthusiast cameras from Canon (like 50d and 7d) and if you get the pro lenses made by Olympus you will clearly see the difference between those photos and other photos taken with those cameras, for me in the end the most important part resides in knowing your equipment well and get the most with it, other discussions are more a matter of religious faith and nothing about the capabilities that each one of us must develop in photography.

f/2.8, eh? Good, at least they are not f/4.0 max. open iris lenses. But there is no hurry to bring these two to market, Panny -- Fujinon, Olympus, Sony, etc. will patiently be waiting around until you release these two glasses. Whenever.

Full frame are seriously over rated. I more often than not grab one of my Olympus cameras rather than the Canon. Apart from the obvious, weight, one reason is I can get more depth of field at lower aperture. FF shallow DOF can have it's disadvantages. In lower light you have to crank up the iso to match what you'd get at lower iso's on m4/3's, so noise goes up and the large sensor advantage goes out the window. The famous phrase goes..."f8 and be there." Well, I'm sure whoever said it (Weegee or Capa, depending on which historian you believe) would have loved to "be there" shooting with a smaller lens at f4 and getting the same result. I for one would prefer to carry around a small f2.8 (f5.6 equiv) m4/3 lens (or preferably f2.4, or even f2 if small enough) rather than my Canon 70-200 f4L and get similar results so I welcome these editions to the m4/3 lens line up. The people criticizing need to get a clue.

It is either you dont own any good glass or you PP your images to death. There is no way anyone who uses 5D 1 or 2 will be happy with image quality of E-PL1 / 2. Even though Olys make great little cameras, I would only use one when Point and Shoot quality is ok. E-PL1 and 2 has noise even at base ISO, not talking about the artifacts. The smooth color gradation of full frame, has not been match by any APC-S size sensor and you're comparing it to FF. Even though those Panys are welcome edition, they will most likely cost more than you 70-200L etc etc etc

Have you ever actually printed files from an Olympus? Yeah, they are noisier than a fullframe camera, but that noise is not very obtrusive at all at low ISO, and is pretty much invisible in print. I've made 16x20 prints from 4/3 sensors that look stunning.

@Vladik. You've missed the point, or I wasn't clear enough. They are different cameras systems and both have their strengths and weaknesses. To sit and compare/complain about DOF equivalencies (f2.8 is equal to F5.6 etc.) or sit and stare at 100% crops of identical high ISO settings is silly. As for post processing, I do a lot more of with the 5DII images. The Olympus out of camera jpegs are excellent. I only shoot RAW in bad light. Canons jpegs are usually c***p. My E-PL2 + the cheap yet amazing 45mm f1.8 holds it's own when compared to the 50mm 1.4 or 100mm f2. The Canons give me more DOF, but they're soft wide open and need to be stopped down for sharpness comparable to the Zuiko (and I have to shoot RAW). My Canon shines when I shoot in RAW with my Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4L, but we're talking about significant weight here. The Tokina alone is 1KG. That's more than my usual bag of m4/3 gear. A little noise visible at 100% and not in print is a small trade off.

I agree. I have bought a 5D MkII but hardly use it. Instead I use nearly on a daily basis my E-P1's, GH-2's and NEX5's. Especially when you are shooting 3D a large (double) camera becomes a huge problem. And I am very satisfied with the image quality of the smaller large sensor camera's.

I also use a 5D MkII and a Panasonic GF-1, always shooting RAW. The trade-offs are clear. I love the 70-200 f4 IS and the 100-300 Panasonic is not its equal in quality. But I can carry the Pany around just in case, and I can shoot FF 200-600mm equivalent without breaking the bank or my back. If I take a good photo with the Panasonic I always wish I had taken it with the 5D Mk II, but I have to make a definite decision to take out the 5D, whereas I can pack the GF-1 "just in case". Now I am considering what to upgrade to from the GF-1. The choices have just go much more interesting...

I'm sorry, but why not then shoot the Canon 80-300mm L if the aperture isn't what you need? As for the 100mm F/2, I've got a hard time believing that it wont on a 5DII at F/3.5 handidly outresolve the Oly 45mm at F/1.8 where both are similar for total light gathered. In fact, if you downscale to 12mp, I'd be surprised to see a large difference between both even wide open.

FF is about flexibility. When want it, it offers shallower DOF than almost any other system. When you need it, and live with the DOF, it offers unparalled low-ligth capability. And when you need the DOF, it offers such SNR that you can still stop down and get DOF similar to that of smaller systems with larger apertures. The only downside is weight and price.

@Chris_in_OsakaLast time I went to mountains I took Oly E-Pen1 instead of my old Canon 350D, and that was a mistake. I thought I'll save the weight, yes I did, 200gramms. But also I got wrong colors (purple sky, wrong green) which is almost impossible to recover in LR (bad gradation) and massive noise even at ISO 200.

@dutch3dmaster It looks like you are not shooting, but collecting the cameras and gadgets. To have 4 different systems is ... well... not optimal.

@CharlesJH Why don't buy Canon 1100D and enjoy? Its cheap, weight and IQ same as Pana GH or better. You get cheap good zooms like 55-250 IS and you can use some of the FF lenses on it.

I shoot with 5D (mk i & II), GF1, GH2 and I must say that while these days I most often shoot with GH2, there is no comparison to images I can get from 5D´s & 35 f/1.4 for example. This is the weakest link on M43 world and the reason I have moved to only shooting with primes on GH2 and GF1.

I have sold my Canon 1D system in exchange with the m4/3 system ...I prefer to walk around with small gear in my neck rather than showing around a huge camera that scares people away.although the 1D IQ is much better than the m4/3..so i think its all about preferences...there is always compromise..

Totally agree ... Never touched FF for any serious job, but probably I didnt felt the need of it. There are so many photographers I know who even dont like APSC and 4/3 sensor size and happy shooting in the streets with their Ricoh fixed lens compacts, because of greater DOF, so if the AF even missed, they still get quite acceptable frame. FF is for DOF fanatics, and I would say 4/3 is the sweet spot of all the digital sensors. I dont even mind Nikon 1, they just need to get more mature with their lens catalogue and bit more pump to sensor ISO cleanup.I took my GH1 to over more than 9 countries world wide, and never regret on any reason for any other camera. I took D90, Sigma S5 Pro, E-P1 and recently D5100 and Olympus XZ-1 with it and always end up using GH1 more than anything else.

@Zanton: the colours you are referring to (as your comment reveals) are not Oly's, but Lightroom's. Use OOC JPEGs or Oly's own RAW conversion software, and the colour is the best around. And that isn't just my opinion - every Oly review says the same thing.

Hate to be a killjoy, but if anyone believes that possessing these two lenses will make them a better photographer he is wrong. Having these two lenses will not improve picture quality.

If serious about photography and with available money to spend I would rather buy studio lights if one works on portraits, or a good sturdy tripod if nature & landscape are your thing. Both these two will make much more impact. Oh and I almost forgot. Spend on Photography and Photoshop courses.

Soooo - who are you responding to? Have you ever actually met someone who thinks that lenses will improve her or his skill? Most people can easily figure out the equipment they want or require to take the kinds of pictures that they want to take. How about you mind your own "business" instead of attempting to give unasked for budgetary planning advice.

What makes you think those buying these two lenses doesn't already have and using a good tripod or own some studio lighting? so we should all go out to find some crappy lens then we can become better photographer?

Exactly Dan_168. I don't think too many people who bought a m4/3 camera doesn't at least know the basics of photography. Probably they have a DSLR as main and m4/3 to compliment. I learned a lot with the stock lens and entry level camera. Then I got a few primes and one "L" glass and a proper external flash and tripod.

So if/when I decide to go "portable", you can bet I'll be looking only for faster glass than the stock lens. Not another "sturdy" tripod that I already own.

As for spending money on Photography or PS clases, I learned by "hands-on" training (and some by looking up free websites for basic tutes). That money I saved from going to classes is what I'm using to spend on better glass. Some people can actually learn by trial/error than someone telling them how to do it. Because I'm sure Henry Ford had someone tell him how to work on a car.

I totally agree with the comment made by Gavril, the main point is knowing well your technique and you can made gorgeous photos with a plastic lomo or a Hasselblad H4D, the fact is that some people runt about cameras that sometimes they didnt have the choice to use, for me the most important part is knowing how to use the equipment (whatever their choice) and be masters of their vision, if someone is thinking that just using a camera will automatically improve their skills, they would always be using the "P" mode or as some people say, the "professional" mode. :)

Pity that they are concept-only. If it takes a year for Panasonic to bring these to market, it may really hurt them. I'm guessing the final aperture will be 2.5, like the 14mm pancake, after it was initially mentioned as being a 2.8

Yes it does. E5 is a 4/3 (NOT MICRO 4/3) body. It's an slr with bigger lenses. There has been talk (amongst enthusiasts) about a pro m4/3 body for a while. I think Thom Hogan predicted and rooted for it a while ago.

I'm not a m4/3 user, but I would have thought long primes are where it's at on these cameras. You can use old mf lenses, or 4/3 (non micro) with the autofocus adapter- there is a 50 f2, 150 f2 and 300 f2.8. There is also already a 35-100 f2 pro zoom.

I'm always grateful that someone else has the time and the access required to attend these trade shows so the rest of us can get a preview of upcoming products. But I wish they would bring a small ruler so we can get an idea of how of big they are (and how big the new camera bag should be!)

If I stay with m4/3 for the long haul, these two lenses will be on my list of upcoming purchases no matter what the cost. But first, there needs to be a better m4/3 body that can focus track a moving subject like Nikon has achieved with the J1 and V1.